Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
